Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: High-power rounds (War!) and recoil
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (Mäx @ Sep 21 2012, 12:23 PM) *
Did you read that last part at all?(also i really hope your not trying to imply that you cant get 20+ out of chargen with that example you titled "char gen legal sam")

Also i'm not arguing its viability, after all as my first posts say i think its sucks(but not really because the -2 dice part).


Actually, I COULD get 20+ dice with some fiddling but it wouldn't be worth the effort (Abusing adept power, bio, and restricted gear). But even at 10+, once you take general combat modifiers that -2 could be the difference between hitting and not, especially if someone is dodging.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 21 2012, 12:43 PM) *
Why is it that when an honest question comes up regarding something from that book, that the majority of responses always seem to be the people who absolutely hate the book or the company crap-talking about one or the other? While I disagree with the -2 of the ammo not being able to be compensated for, it's how the rules for it work, and I will abide by it without trash-talking the entire fraggin book and the company. And no, the stuff in the War! book is NOT unusable. It's not even truly "imbalanced" unless your idea of "balance" is entirely derived from MMOs or DnD 4th, IMO.


It is rare that you and I completely agree on something, But Thank You for this. Cannot agree more.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 21 2012, 02:49 PM) *
The problem, I believe, is that people look at the stuff in WAR! and think it's way too powerful for a typical shadowrun. They might just be right. I suspect that these very same people aren't familiar or acclimatized to scenario specific sourcebooks and erroneously believe that every sourcebook is suitable for the standard game.

Um, no.

Most of the complaints about WAR! center around rules and content that makes no sense or is just horrid.

Not about the power level.

Otherwise people would be just as hard on the multiple books since it was published that contain mostly military level gear.

Stuff like the first round somehow having a recoil penalty. Or Bogota having a seaport despite it being on a mountain. Or hunting the ghosts of Holocaust victims. And the like.

Power level, no. Not the problem at hand.

Now, that said, not EVERY part of the book is bad. It's just that there are so damn many WTF areas in the book a lot of folks simply ban it from their games out of principle.

I, personally, don't blame the entire company for this, much as it IS their responsibility to answer for the quality of the product they put their names on. But the folks that worked on the actual book? Sure.



-k
Fatum
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 22 2012, 04:25 AM) *
I, personally, don't blame the entire company for this, much as it IS their responsibility to answer for the quality of the product they put their names on. But the folks that worked on the actual book? Sure.
I agree with the part on the power level and that, but I, on the contrary, blame the company as a whole and not the authors for the fiasco. See, for example, when I'm writing one of them fan supplements, I'm expected to be the only one working on it, so I decide what to write and how to write it myself; and then whatever I write I'm testing myself, again.
In a publishing company, on the other hand, writers are controlled, and their texts are supposed to be edited by the publisher, and their rules and stats playtested or at least maybe reviewed. Anyone can make a mistake - hell, in alt.War my proofreaders found a few times I just switched gun stats around, or made similarly stupid errors, - but if a writer is working for a publisher, it's the publisher's job to debug his writing.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 21 2012, 08:25 PM) *
Stuff like the first round somehow having a recoil penalty.


It's not the rule that is the problem but the wording of the rule.

"High powered rounds increase damage and armor penetration by increasing the mass and muzzle velocity of rounds fired from them by using stronger propellants. The downside to these propellants is that the bullet starts to deform in the barrel and tumbles in midair. While tumbling would normally cause a weapon to have a lower effective range, the higher velocity and bullet mass permits the bullet to retain its normal ranges. The offset is that the tumbling makes it less likely that the bullet will hit the target and grants a -2 penalty to all attacks made with the weapon."

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 21 2012, 08:25 PM) *
Or Bogota having a seaport despite it being on a mountain. Or hunting the ghosts of Holocaust victims. And the like.


Fluff. Don't give a shit about. To me, about the only purpose of the fluff is page bloat and needlessly doubles the size of the book. In fact, my only complaint about the fluff is that the fluff didn't make sense in the context. They made fluff for a campaign specific environment in a book that contains rules and options for a specific power level of gameplay. That's the single biggest problem with the fluff. Any other problems with the fluff is essentially extraneous and secondary to that fact.

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 21 2012, 08:25 PM) *
Now, that said, not EVERY part of the book is bad. It's just that there are so damn many WTF areas in the book a lot of folks simply ban it from their games out of principle.


That's asinine. Throwing out rules for the game you're making because the fluff doesn't make sense is pretty much the pinnacle expression of pettiness.

QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Sep 21 2012, 08:25 PM) *
I, personally, don't blame the entire company for this, much as it IS their responsibility to answer for the quality of the product they put their names on. But the folks that worked on the actual book? Sure.


Their product is a game and given the financial problems that they faced past, the fluff is probably the first thing they should have cut. They money spent on fluff is money not spent on other tasks. It doesn't matter if the fluff comes free because then you're still paying money to edit, proofread, and otherwise have staff deal with it.
Fatum
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 24 2012, 05:40 PM) *
That's asinine. Throwing out rules for the game you're making because the fluff doesn't make sense is pretty much the pinnacle expression of pettiness.
Except the rules suck a dozen different ways. If you're interested in specifics, you can always open one of the threads devoted specifically to War!; but basically, pretty much everything from the book is unusable as it is presented. Hell, down to the vehicle names.
All4BigGuns
@StealthSigma: There's no reasoning with the ones who dump Hater-Ade on the War! book or any other book because they just won't listen.
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 24 2012, 10:51 AM) *
@StealthSigma: There's no reasoning with the ones who dump Hater-Ade on the War! book or any other book because they just won't listen.


The book is poorly written. I don't see why this is such an issue for you. You're playing white knight for a company that put out a poor product and refuses to errata it. The quality has come up quite a bit since War!, showing they learned from their mistake, and to be fair they had even just lost Adam Jury and a couple of writers as well. At the end of the day the quality was not up to par and defending it just makes you look obstinate. Nothing is perfect, we make the best we can with the materials presented. But when the materials presented do not work, something has to give.
Mäx
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Sep 24 2012, 09:10 PM) *
The book is poorly written.

Parts of it definitely are(especially many of the fluffy parts), but there are way too many good additions to the game(such as mines, battle rifles, new ware etc.) for just dumping the whole book to make any sense.
X-Kalibur
Compared to their general level of quality it was lacking. Certainly most of the equipment (minus the HP rounds, of course) are a nice addition for people running a merc game (or a really high level HTR team). Again I say compare the quality to the nearest equivalent book - Fields of Fire.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Sep 24 2012, 02:10 PM) *
The book is poorly written. I don't see why this is such an issue for you. You're playing white knight for a company that put out a poor product and refuses to errata it. The quality has come up quite a bit since War!, showing they learned from their mistake, and to be fair they had even just lost Adam Jury and a couple of writers as well. At the end of the day the quality was not up to par and defending it just makes you look obstinate. Nothing is perfect, we make the best we can with the materials presented. But when the materials presented do not work, something has to give.


All the complaints that I have seen leveled against War! have been about poor writing and not the quality of a particular rule. For example, the recoil bit for high powered. I agree. It is a very idiotically written rule due to its fluff portion but it does not mean the rule itself is bad. It does mean that since it's not actually a recoil penalty it doesn't stack like recoil so it's not as though you have a -2/-4 penalty fir the 1st/2nd shot of a round.

I've seen the argument, by you I think, that high powered ammo is worse than EX-Ex or APDS because that's two less dice you have to hit the target but applying your logic outward, that would make EX-Ex inferior to APDS because it provides 3 more dice to opponent to soak damage.

Yes, there are some silly weapons, like an assault rifle with an underbarrel stun baton, but how many silly weapons have we seen come out of Dumpshock thanks to Arsenal? All of the equipment is good, the vehicles are (at least by numbers) balanced by the anti-vehicle options presented in the book even if they are completely unbalanced against other books. The leadership skill usages are very nice if a bit weak for runners. I haven't had an opportunity to number test some of the other rules.

As I've said before. I don't give a shit about fluff because fluff ultimately doesn't matter when playing the game. A GM can create whatever fluff for his world that he wants and one that cannot do that I would find to be a very lacking GM. They could have cut out all the fluff from WAR! and cut the page count in half and I would be happier with the product since it would probably fetch a lower retail price.

Now, if they were trying to create a book which also created a campaign setting (Bogota) then they failed miserably on that account and should be chided for their failure, but the rules and content themselves are for the most part well done even if the fluffy descriptions for some of the options doesn't make sense or sounds silly.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 24 2012, 11:44 AM) *
Except the rules suck a dozen different ways. If you're interested in specifics, you can always open one of the threads devoted specifically to War!; but basically, pretty much everything from the book is unusable as it is presented. Hell, down to the vehicle names.


I disagree... I have used plenty of stuff in that book as it is presented. *shrug*
All4BigGuns
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Sep 24 2012, 12:10 PM) *
The book is poorly written. I don't see why this is such an issue for you. You're playing white knight for a company that put out a poor product and refuses to errata it. The quality has come up quite a bit since War!, showing they learned from their mistake, and to be fair they had even just lost Adam Jury and a couple of writers as well. At the end of the day the quality was not up to par and defending it just makes you look obstinate. Nothing is perfect, we make the best we can with the materials presented. But when the materials presented do not work, something has to give.


As StealthSigma said, with the exception of that one little mistake in the high-powered rounds, a good chunk of the "poor writing" is in the setting information sections, which while those maybe should've been edited a bit more thoroughly, it isn't a good reason to blanket ban the entire book. Heck, most of what I've seen of the complaints on the other forum (and this one too) have more been knee-jerk "Me No Want! Me No Like!" on certain rules, so they claim that the entire thing just plain sucks to try and lure others into not using anything from the book--basically thinking their personal opinions on the matter should be taken as Gospel Truth by everyone.
Mäx
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Sep 24 2012, 09:17 PM) *
Compared to their general level of quality it was lacking. Certainly most of the equipment (minus the HP rounds, of course) are a nice addition for people running a merc game (or a really high level HTR team). Again I say compare the quality to the nearest equivalent book - Fields of Fire.

Fluff worse, rules additions better.
And IMO all of the crunch i mentioned by name are totally usable for a normal SR game, no need for it to be some special variant.
Fatum
Let's browse War! quickly.

[ Spoiler ]

As you can see, more than half the crunch in the book is either useless, unusable or hilariously broken.
I for one don't ban the book in its entirety, and I'm ready to work with my players to make their choices from War! worthwhile, but I can certainly understand people who do.
Mäx
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 02:03 PM) *
As you can see, more than half the crunch in the book is either useless, unusable or hilariously broken.

I don't agree with your opinion on many of those, but especially not on Battle Rifles being useless, seriously what the heck are you smoking wobble.gif
All4BigGuns
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 06:03 AM) *
Let's browse War! quickly.

[ Spoiler ]

As you can see, more than half the crunch in the book is either useless, unusable or hilariously broken.
I for one don't ban the book in its entirety, and I'm ready to work with my players to make their choices from War! worthwhile, but I can certainly understand people who do.


Honestly, I disagree with the entirety here. It's just a case, IMO, of a person basically saying "Hurr! I have no idea what I'm doing, but I can do better than the professionals!"
X-Kalibur
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 25 2012, 12:07 PM) *
Honestly, I disagree with the entirety here. It's just a case, IMO, of a person basically saying "Hurr! I have no idea what I'm doing, but I can do better than the professionals!"


Then please, explain how each one of the items on that list isn't actually problematic.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (X-Kalibur @ Sep 25 2012, 03:12 PM) *
Then please, explain how each one of the items on that list isn't actually problematic.


Well, let's start with the first item on this list which is a problem how?

As far as I can tell the opinion is that since Leadership (along with parachuting and diving for that matter) has a very poor implementation in the master rule book that the addition of rules to it is a Meh.

Then it follows up with the extremely comical statement that battle rifles are useless.

Then there's the comment that high powered rounds are hilariously badly worded and commenting that it's a crunch rather than fluff problem which doesn't make sense since the hilarity of the bad wording is a fluff aspect.

The comment on satellite and thor weapons is hilarious more or less because I suspect, based on the wording in the opinion, that the effect of a thor shot far more closely resembles what would actually happen in which case that is a superiority of the rules to contradict the fluff written by science fiction authors which often have no grasp of the science they're allegedly writing about.

I'm not going to comment on the others because I haven't taken the time to commit those rules or features to memory or to bother assessing them however I will state that since Max has at the very least stated that mines are a wonderful addition and it is a direct contradiction of what is put in Fatum's list that given the other glaring flaws in Fatum's assessment that I've pointed out I'm inclined to believe Max's statement on it until I've had the chance to assess it myself.
Mäx
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 10:21 PM) *
I'm not going to comment on the others because I haven't taken the time to commit those rules or features to memory or to bother assessing them however I will state that since Max has at the very least stated that mines are a wonderful addition and it is a direct contradiction of what is put in Fatum's list that given the other glaring flaws in Fatum's assessment that I've pointed out I'm inclined to believe Max's statement on it until I've had the chance to assess it myself.

Well i do have to give him that the Dragon box mine is indeed quite absurd and also highly problematic to use, even if one accepts the absurdity, as the rules for dragonfly drones in Arsenal are quite bad.
Fatum
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 25 2012, 11:07 PM) *
Honestly, I disagree with the entirety here. It's just a case, IMO, of a person basically saying "Hurr! I have no idea what I'm doing, but I can do better than the professionals!"
Nice personal attack there. It completely invalidates everything I've written, of course. Shame on me.


QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 11:21 PM) *
As far as I can tell the opinion is that since Leadership (along with parachuting and diving for that matter) has a very poor implementation in the master rule book that the addition of rules to it is a Meh.
It's bad that the real usages of a skill in Core can't be found in Core. I believe it to be pretty obvious from my comment.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 11:21 PM) *
Then it follows up with the extremely comical statement that battle rifles are useless.
Quite a bit less damage compensated by increased range that you don't need in most shadowrunning situations.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 11:21 PM) *
Then there's the comment that high powered rounds are hilariously badly worded and commenting that it's a crunch rather than fluff problem which doesn't make sense since the hilarity of the bad wording is a fluff aspect.
Recoil can be compensated with RC. Can the "-2 modificator due to recoil" be? Is the first shot in a turn affected? How are those fluff problems?

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 11:21 PM) *
The comment on satellite and thor weapons is hilarious more or less because I suspect, based on the wording in the opinion, that the effect of a thor shot far more closely resembles what would actually happen in which case that is a superiority of the rules to contradict the fluff written by science fiction authors which often have no grasp of the science they're allegedly writing about.
It'd serve you well to base your opinions on facts and not suspicions. If you actually read the book, you'll notice that those weapons destroy everything in the epicenter and do minuscule 30P to everything beyond it. Do you really think that such granularity reflects the reality of a blast?

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 25 2012, 11:21 PM) *
I'm not going to comment on the others because I haven't taken the time to commit those rules or features to memory or to bother assessing them however I will state that since Max has at the very least stated that mines are a wonderful addition and it is a direct contradiction of what is put in Fatum's list that given the other glaring flaws in Fatum's assessment that I've pointed out I'm inclined to believe Max's statement on it until I've had the chance to assess it myself.
"I don't know the rules, but I don't like it when they criticize the rules, so the criticism must be bad".
Mäx
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 26 2012, 12:07 AM) *
Quite a bit less damage compensated by increased range that you don't need in most shadowrunning situations.

Less damage then what exactly?
Fatum
Than anything FA.
Halinn
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 11:07 PM) *
Quite a bit less damage compensated by increased range that you don't need in most shadowrunning situations.

It should be compared to assault rifles, not longarms, in which case they provide a very welcome extra option for that skill.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 03:36 PM) *
Than anything FA.


Which is an Opinion, and not fact. As was your entire post about the drawbacks of War! smile.gif
An opinion that is not shared by many here on Dumpshock, as you have seen.
StealthSigma
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 05:07 PM) *
Quite a bit less damage compensated by increased range that you don't need in most shadowrunning situations.


Quit a bit less damage? Compared to what?

Sniper rifles?
Sniper rifles have about 2P -2AP over battle rifles and lack the burst fire option.

Shotguns?
While the shotgun is superior at close ranges (as it should be) due to its multi-target capabilities that superiority quickly drops off with distance making the comparison a moot point since the weapons are designed for different roles.

Sport rifles?
Flat out worse than battle rifles.

Assault rifles?
Well, the issue of moving from longarms to automatics weapon group aside. The assault rifle group's sole advantage over the battle rifle is its full auto mode and a slight advantage in ammo capacity. Battle rifles have the higher innate damage code as well as longer range. The problem for assault rifles is that battle rifles are already BF. That means is a small modification (1 slot, 300 nuyen) to modifier a battle rifle to accept FA firing. At that point, the battle rifle is superior to the assault rifle.

No, the problem with battle rifles is they make assault rifles redundant and obsolete. The single largest reason that we do not equip the majority of armed forces with battle rifle type weapons over assault rifles just happens to be a reason that is not modeled in Shadowrun. Weight. In fact, if you're taking automatics just for the assault rifle and have no plans to use SMGs or machine pistols you're much better off swapping all the points from automatics to longarms and taking that 1 mod slot 300 nuyen tax to mod a battle rifle for full auto. In return you gain access (read skill) to the best close range weapons and access to the longest range non-heavy weapons in the game.

QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 05:07 PM) *
Recoil can be compensated with RC. Can the "-2 modificator due to recoil" be? Is the first shot in a turn affected? How are those fluff problems?


You're still wrapped up on the fluff problem with the rule. The mechanic parts of it are extremely clear. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired due to excess recoil." Since Fire Weapon and Fire Automatic Weapon are actions that one takes it's fairly obvious this penalty applies when you make an attack action with the weapon.

I'm going to remove the fluff from the rule. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired." Recoil controversy eliminated! I'm also going to add some words which make recoil compensation apply. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty (neutralized by recoil compensation) when fired."

QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 05:07 PM) *
It'd serve you well to base your opinions on facts and not suspicions. If you actually read the book, you'll notice that those weapons destroy everything in the epicenter and do minuscule 30P to everything beyond it. Do you really think that such granularity reflects the reality of a blast?


That falls about in line from what I would expect from the general design of a thor shot weapon. I think people have a rather unrealistic representation of what a thor shot would do due to poor research and writing on the part of science fiction writers. A thor shot style weapon is a kinetic weapon and not an explosive weapon. The best real world example of what a thor shot would do is to take a bunker buster bomb and remove the explosive ordinance from it.

Now a thor shot will destroy a building, but not by flattening it underneath it. It's going to rip through the building down through the foundation destroying huge amounts of structure support as well as foundational support. The odds are that after such significant damage the building will collapse under its own weight. A lot of the area damage is probably being causes by fragmentation of the object hit, superheated air plasma, heat from air friction of the projectile, and perhaps even some damage based on the supersonic speed.
FuelDrop
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 08:04 AM) *
Quit a bit less damage? Compared to what?

Assault rifles?
Well, the issue of moving from longarms to automatics weapon group aside. The assault rifle group's sole advantage over the battle rifle is its full auto mode and a slight advantage in ammo capacity. Battle rifles have the higher innate damage code as well as longer range. The problem for assault rifles is that battle rifles are already BF. That means is a small modification (1 slot, 300 nuyen) to modifier a battle rifle to accept FA firing. At that point, the battle rifle is superior to the assault rifle.

No, the problem with battle rifles is they make assault rifles redundant and obsolete. The single largest reason that we do not equip the majority of armed forces with battle rifle type weapons over assault rifles just happens to be a reason that is not modeled in Shadowrun. Weight. In fact, if you're taking automatics just for the assault rifle and have no plans to use SMGs or machine pistols you're much better off swapping all the points from automatics to longarms and taking that 1 mod slot 300 nuyen tax to mod a battle rifle for full auto. In return you gain access (read skill) to the best close range weapons and access to the longest range non-heavy weapons in the game.

It gets worse. Battle rifles use automatics as well.
Fatum
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 04:04 AM) *
Quit a bit less damage? Compared to what?
To assault rifles or machine guns. Although yeah, they do 1 point of damage more than assault rifles, and while they cost about twice as much with the mod, they are usable. You seem to be right with this one.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 04:04 AM) *
You're still wrapped up on the fluff problem with the rule. The mechanic parts of it are extremely clear. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired due to excess recoil." Since Fire Weapon and Fire Automatic Weapon are actions that one takes it's fairly obvious this penalty applies when you make an attack action with the weapon.
I'm going to remove the fluff from the rule. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty when fired." Recoil controversy eliminated! I'm also going to add some words which make recoil compensation apply. "High-power rounds inflict a -2 dice pool penalty (neutralized by recoil compensation) when fired."
Except "inflict -2 recoil penalty to a dice pool" would mean the second variant, which the rule obviously implies. And that is what makes it bad.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 04:04 AM) *
That falls about in line from what I would expect from the general design of a thor shot weapon. I think people have a rather unrealistic representation of what a thor shot would do due to poor research and writing on the part of science fiction writers. A thor shot style weapon is a kinetic weapon and not an explosive weapon. The best real world example of what a thor shot would do is to take a bunker buster bomb and remove the explosive ordinance from it.
Except that ballistic kinetic weapons tested so far produce a crater still, not a point-of-impact shaft. And Thor missile is said to be equivalent "to the force of a one-kiloton fission bomb", destroying everything in 200 meters. So it's by far not a bunker buster, it just goes from "destroyed outright" to "pretty much nothing happens, howitzer rounds deal more damage".
StealthSigma
QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 08:22 PM) *
To assault rifles or machine guns. Although yeah, they do 1 point of damage more than assault rifles, and while they cost about twice as much with the mod, they are usable. You seem to be right with this one.


Light machine guns are 6P -1AP and are usually a bit cheaper.
Medium machine guns are 6P -2AP and cost more than battle rifles.
Heavy machine guns are 7P -3AP and cost way more than battle rifles.

QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 08:22 PM) *
Except "inflict -2 recoil penalty to a dice pool" would mean the second variant, which the rule obviously implies. And that is what makes it bad.


Yes, that would mean the second option except that's not how it's worded.

QUOTE (Fatum @ Sep 25 2012, 08:22 PM) *
Except that ballistic kinetic weapons tested so far produce a crater still, not a point-of-impact shaft. And Thor missile is said to be equivalent "to the force of a one-kiloton fission bomb", destroying everything in 200 meters. So it's by far not a bunker buster, it just goes from "destroyed outright" to "pretty much nothing happens, howitzer rounds deal more damage".


Correct, but most of those large scale tests that leave craters are being done so against soft targets like dirt and sand. At the values of energy that we're talking about, dirt, sand, and even rock are practically fluids. The largest portion of that crater is going to be caused by the projectile displacing mass out and up (mostly up) away from the impact point with more mass filling the the hole left behind by the projectile. A 5-10m radius crater would probably be about right for a 0.3m cross section thor shot.

You'll never see a clean hole against anything but an entirely solid mass. Most objects hit by such a weapon contain so much crude running throughout them that the projectile cutting through it is going drag, fracture, and otherwise impair surround material so it will collapse in around the impact hole.
Fatum
QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 05:53 AM) *
Light machine guns are 6P -1AP and are usually a bit cheaper.
Medium machine guns are 6P -2AP and cost more than battle rifles.
Heavy machine guns are 7P -3AP and cost way more than battle rifles.
HMGs are better, but they're strictly F and have higher availability, so you can't get them at default chargen.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 05:53 AM) *
Yes, that would mean the second option except that's not how it's worded.
It is worded ambiguously, which is precisely the problem.

QUOTE (StealthSigma @ Sep 26 2012, 05:53 AM) *
Correct, but most of those large scale tests that leave craters are being done so against soft targets like dirt and sand. At the values of energy that we're talking about, dirt, sand, and even rock are practically fluids. The largest portion of that crater is going to be caused by the projectile displacing mass out and up (mostly up) away from the impact point with more mass filling the the hole left behind by the projectile. A 5-10m radius crater would probably be about right for a 0.3m cross section thor shot.
"Anything within 200 meters of the strike is destroyed, blasted to powder by the energy of the blast".
All4BigGuns
If you want to take my comment as an attack, by all means do so, I don't give a rat's behind, but I will point out that to be a 'personal' attack, a single person needs to be singled out--which didn't happen. All I did is state my opinion which is mainly drawn from being sick and dang tired of people thinking they can do a better job writing rules than those who are paid to do so, and most likely have more experience (discounting house rules which are tailored to one group).
KarmaInferno
You don't have to be a professional writer to spot glaring problems in logic or mechanics.

And some of the folks complaining ARE professional writers.

I'll also note that in the RPG field, much of the writing pool does NOT have any sort of real formalized training in writing, grammar, or the like. It's mostly ascended players and GMs who one day decided to submit some ideas to their favorite game and got a call back from the game company.

It's not just the writers though. Problems are also supposed to be caught at the editing and playtest stage.

Shadowrun product has historically been pretty decent, aside from sometimes really needing a "gun guy" to look over their gear sections. WAR was an anomaly. It has a lot of nice stuff, but it also really needed a few more rounds of editing and testing.



-k
Fatum
QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 26 2012, 09:18 AM) *
If you want to take my comment as an attack, by all means do so, I don't give a rat's behind, but I will point out that to be a 'personal' attack, a single person needs to be singled out--which didn't happen.
>"Your text is basically someone saying this shit and that".
>Not a personal attack
I am honestly surprised that you're still trying to pass it as a valid argument in a crunch discussion.

QUOTE (All4BigGuns @ Sep 26 2012, 09:18 AM) *
All I did is state my opinion which is mainly drawn from being sick and dang tired of people thinking they can do a better job writing rules than those who are paid to do so, and most likely have more experience (discounting house rules which are tailored to one group).
You don't need to be a cook to tell that the steak is burned. Similarly, you don't need to be Gary Gygax to point out that a certain set of rules is horrendously broken, up to the point of failing to read rules from the other splat and comply with them (yeah, I do mean vehicle stats in War!).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012